User talk:Isjadd773/Archive 1

Archive 1

Issues - Chris Brown article

Man, you did a great job on that article. I think I did too. I care about the article's content as much as you do. But I don't want to mess anybody's Wikipedia experience. I think that we can end it like this:

Go ahead and remove whatever you want on the Rihanna section, I won't revert you. If you want to remove the mothers names, do that too. Please also remove all the legal issues that ended up with Brown being not guilty (let's remove the defamatory content). But please if you want to remove what I added to the article's lead about the cult following, put it on a well-rounded Legacy section. You did a great section about the achievements , I'm sure you can do another one very well. DollysOnMyMind (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Lets achieve consensus on the following:

Lead: Cut down word length by removing age and individual award tallies. Leave information on cult like following. Condense info on Rihanna in paragraph 2 and 4 into paragraph 2. Keep info on Billboard records.

Infobox: Ill concede to leave rapper as an occupation to keep genres as R&B, Pop and Hip Hop and wont add additional in the future.

2023 - Breezy: Keep image from Jamaica but ideally if he goes on tour for his new album and there is a tour image from a new tour for that album, it should be replaced. But for the time being keep the image from Jamaica.

Personal Life: Remove names of children and the names childrens mothers but mention the births generally. If there are any confirmed relationships in the future through reputable sources or the artist himself, then you are free to add. I wont get in your way.

Legal Issues: Cut down details on Rihanna case to how it was presented in the article a few days prior. Keep the 3 settled copyright lawsuits the same. Leave subheading for false accusations as what is present in the article now.

Talk Page: Archive the discussions on length, rapper identifier, genres and children as closed and resolved.

Is this agreeable? Instantwatym (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead: I'm cool with it, but the information about subsequent legal issues following the Rihanna stuff being highlighted by several media outlets should be kept.

Infobox: Hip hop gotta stay where it's at. For the future I think that Afrobeats could be mentioned as a fourth genre if it's something that he will continue to do in the next works.

2023 - 11:11: I agree

Personal Life: We can restore the version of as it was before I edited it yesterday

Legal Issues: Ok, but the Privacy lawsuit should be presented as the first one, and written as it is now

Talk Page: yeah we can close them all DollysOnMyMind (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree to it. I will make changes to the article per this conensus in a days time to avoid 3RR, given the reverts already made today, and reference this consensus in edit summaries and subsquently close the relevant talk page discussions. Will remove the length flag as well after changes are made. Instantwatym (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

alright. Good continuation! DollysOnMyMind (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Journal of Crohn's and Colitis

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Journal of Crohn's and Colitis, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Jay Z

Please stop edit warring on the Jay Z article. The issue is being discussed on both the talk page and on WP:BLPN, so repeating your edits while this is ongoing will not help your argument one bit. And your edit here was nothing but designed to be disruptive. Do not do things like this again. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

My edits on the article occured prior to the discussion on WP:BLPN, so implying that I've been repeating edits while that particular discussion is ongoing is false. Moreover, there is no consensus (nor much traction) on that discussion and in any case no edits have been made since the discussion was started so this warning was pointless. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

nableezy - 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You are violation of WP:NPOV. I won't revert you again today due to previous reverts on that article already but I will eventually. Present valid arguments for your reverts next time. The R Kelly identifier was valid given his convinction is related to predated crimes. He was a sex trafficker at the time the albums were recorded per the eventual conviction. The information about those collab albums previously being omitted from the lead was already evidence of the bias present in that article. Also, the allegations of Jay-Z having sexual relations with minor as alleged through an ongoing paternity suit, are absolutely relevant to a lead. No update in his life currently is more relevant than a supreme court case. Instantwatym (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, you are in violation of WP:BLP and your aim of filling the lead of a biography of a living person with whatever negative material you can find is not going to end well. Allegations in a civil suit are not things that are included in a BLP lead, and probably should not be in the article at all. If you continue to edit-war you will be reported. You are welcome to seek out additional views or engage on the talk page, you are not welcome to attempt to edit-war in material that others have objected to without that consensus. nableezy - 19:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP is based on NPOV, NOR and verifiability, none of which were violated. Including negative information which is verifiable and not original research is not a violation BLP. Neither is including negative information necessarily a violation of neutrality. That's not how neutrality works. It's about presenting all relevant information, whether positive or negative. This is a Wikipedia article, not the fandom fork article. I will eventually make a case on the article talk page and revert. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP before telling me what it is based on. If you revert without consensus I will be reporting it. Do what you want with that information. nableezy - 19:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it. I will revert eventually, at which point you can report if it makes you happy. Your revert about removing the R Kelly identifier is not even supported by another editor, so neither party in this dispute is right or wrong. Instantwatym (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS requires consensus for disputed additions. Beyond that, I've already raised the issue on the talk page. nableezy - 23:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted with responses provided on the article talk page and in the edit summary. If you want to report and seek admin intervention, you are more than welcome to do so. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Moxy🍁 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi Instantwatym, your edit summary opining my removal of GQ at RSP Could be a coincidence, sockuppetry or collaborative editing borderlines a personal attack and is certainly casting aspersions. I am going to chalk this up as someone in a heated debate so perhaps a little too worked up but do not do it again. I have no involvement in whatever dispute you are in. Even so, at your request, I have started a discussion about GQ's inclusion at WT:RSP. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Good on you for opening a discussion, which is what you should have done in the first place before removing sources on which there is already a consensus. The fact is the GQ source has never been removed from that list since its inclusion. But coincidentally it was removed and the reliability of international editions were questioned (per your own edit summary) the same day there is a dispute about its international editions on another article. Which is why I questioned whether it was a coincidence or not. Coincidences such as that often lead to editors being accused of sockpuppetry, whether the claim holds true or not. If it was indeed a pure coincidence, then I apologize. Instantwatym (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you go through the edit history listings are added and removed without explicit consensus but yes, since you have disputed my removal and another editor reverted you, a discussion is warranted. As for Coincidences such as that often lead to editors being accused of sockpuppetry, only state such things if you have evidence (i.e. enough to file an SPI). I assure you, the timing was truly a coincidence so apology accepted. I also suggest installing the Navigation Popups in your Preferences>Gadgets. It gives you the ability to hover over an editor's name which provides some helpful information about them (when they joined, number of edits, perms. etc.) . It's quite useful. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Chris Brown, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing karrueche

Please stop trying to use your editing privilege to push your own whitewashed narrative of Chris Brown's personal life by removing facts like how he broke up with Karrueche Tran or removing context to his domestic violence case. There's a wide journalistic coverage on how everything went down. I won't even respond to claims saying that you're not trying to do such thing, and I will restore every single inappropriate removal with at least 5 reliable sources to those points to consolidate them even more if you insist in such way. I've seen you editing Karrueche Tran "onlyfans" as one of her main occupations and listen, we both know what you're doing, it's truly the worst side of your editing, we both know that you can do better than pushing your own narratives this way, and I hope you will stick into introducing great content instead. The removals are not going to happen NoOneElseLovEe (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, new sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso, you make it very easy dont you. I had similar disputes with your previous sockpuppet DollysOnMyMind who was pretending to be a South African user but was eventually banned since it was clear as day they were a sockpuppet. I personally dont have some kind of vandetta against you which is why I never seek to report your various sockpuppet accounts. You just end up getting caught out and banned through your various other disputes.

Not all trivial and frivilous information about someones personal life needs to be added to their Wikipedia page. Gossip is not necessarily encyclopedic. Neverthless, his ex-girlfriend is clearly still mentioned in his personal life section as is their breakup. The information about his domestic violence needs to stick to the legal issues themselves since its a legal issues section. An interview with Larry King and his personal documentary has nothing to do with the case, and neither are referenced in any court documents.

As for the removal on the HBOAFM article, you are well aware that neither the MTV source (which you reinstated) nor the HotNewHipHop mention that woman as a source of inspiration for that album. This is pure fabrication and the removal was warranted. Kindly revert it. As for the occuptions of Ms. Tran, she openly advertises herself as an adult content creator on OnlyFans. Me acknowledging that and adding it to her article with supporting sources is not slanderous in the slightest. You being offended or ashamed that some celebrity is on OnlyFans is not my problem nor Ms. Trans.

P.S. If two editors have a positive bias towards a given subject or individual, its best if they dont get in eachothers way. For example, I never removed your massive paragraph about some irrelevant rap beef from Browns 11 11 album section, despite that the fact it has nothing to do with his 11 11 album or era. Nor did I remove the copyright violation infobox image you uploaded again to commons with a different account (after it was deleted for the umpteenth time) and immediately added to the article by your DollysOnMyMind sockpuppet. Instantwatym (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I am no sockpuppet. That being said, I understand some of the content removal (Larry King interview, per example), but other removals like the one on the HOAFM page crosses the line of truth. I've seen you improve the article in many ways (breezy section, etc.), I just don't understand why that editing approach is not the main role you choose to have on Wikipedia. These removals, and obvious pov pushing, are bad editing, and are really stopping you from being a great editor. I'm not judging you, everybody has their own issues with editing approach, me too of course. I just hope you understand why I'm telling you this. I'm not trying to get in nobody's way, I'm staying in mine, and i'm telling you I will stay in my way and protect that kind of content, because there's some hard working research behind it. There's someone staying behind the computer for hours behind it. NoOneElseLovEe (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

While Im inclined to believe you are the same editor due to the same issues being disputed, if you say you arent the so be it. With regards to the content disputes, we dont have to eye to eye on it and if you want to push back on the information trimmed under relationships and legal issues per WP:NOTADIARY you can. WP:NOTADIARY is afterall subjective. I think interviews about the incident or quotes coming from a documentary is all frivolous information which holds little value to the vast majority of readers. Similarly, I think including minor details about the relationship with Tran, beyond what is currently mentioned in the article, is also frivolous. I also trimmed the excerpt about his children. They are still mentioned but more so in a general manner similar to what has been done in the Future article. He is another artist who has fathered multiple children with multiple women, with limited details about his relationships with the mothers. You say that the removal of information about Tran as a source of inspiration for HBOAFM or some of its songs is crossing the line but that information was not supported by the cited sources. The MTV sources only mentions the album X and not Tran as a source of inspiration for that album either. The HotNewHipHop source does not mention Tran in reference to any songs. If you can provide sources about HBOAFM being inspired by her, I will revert my last edit on the artist article. Instantwatym (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)